OCEAN CITY – It’s been almost a year since Joe Mitrecic won his seat in Snow Hill as a Worcester County Commissioner, but very few people in the region would have the audacity to call him a political “newbie.”
Yet, even the stoic and often outspoken Mitrecic admits that things are much different as a County Commissioner than they were as an Ocean City councilman, a role he held for two and a half terms, including a substantial stint as council president.
Mitrecic ran unopposed during the 2014 election for the District 7 seat that represents Ocean City at the county level, after former commissioner Louise Gulyas decided not to seek re-election after four terms.
But despite being unopposed, Mitrecic campaigned hard and was quite vocal about some of the things he wanted to change right out of the gate when he got to Snow Hill.
We sat down this week with Mitrecic to talk about the status of some of his big ticket campaign initiatives almost a year in, and to find out if his sometimes brash style of legislating has garnered him more allies than enemies.
Q: We are coming up on a year since your election. Let’s start with the most recent conversation about employee benefits at the county level. It’s one of the things you talked about when you were coming in. Specifically, you’ve taken umbrage with the longstanding practice to provide benefits to not only employees but also their spouse’s full benefits for life. Now the county asks the spouse of employees to pay 20 percent of those benefits, but you say that doesn’t go far enough, citing that the county should be more like Ocean City’s setup, where employee’s spouses are not covered for life. Why is this so important to you and how vital is this issue, in your opinion, for the county’s future fiscal goals?
A: We just got our actuarial study, and we have a $197,165,313 liability in OPEB, which is after retirement benefits, and that’s just medical. That’s it, not pension, nothing else. $197 million?
Q: That’s a substantial number.
A: A substantial number? That falls directly on the taxpayers of Worcester County to pay.
Q: So why the hesitation, especially with the conversation at the county level to tighten the budget and make cuts where need be, why is a number like $197 million not on the table for cuts?
A: Well, first of all, we wouldn’t cut the entire $197 million.
Q: Of course.
A: That number is going to be there because that includes everyone that is hired today, our liability for their health care and the spouse and their dependents after their retirement. We need to pay that number down over years. There are years that we don’t pay what we are paying out of that fund, so what happens is, last year we paid for retirees $4,000,711 and we put $2 million in. So, as you can tell, that’s not the right way to go. The county was able to, in 2009, they put a big chunk from fund balance (a $35 million payment) in there which helped catch us up … so they have been a little bit proactive with it, but the number continues to grow. If you think about the UAW retired medical fund last year was $20.7 billion short to being funded. That’s over $2,000 of every American made vehicle goes just to paying for retiree medical care. This is a huge number if you look at cities, counties, and states across the United States today, they are bankrupt because of two things: retiree benefits, meaning health, and retirement pensions … they no longer pay for themselves. It’s just going to catch up with us. The proof is out there, and the writing is on the wall, and so if you continue to offer these huge medical benefits to new employees, you are going to continue that cycle and that number is only going to grow.
Q: Tax differential was another one of those big topics that you talked about when you came into office. It’s been a big point of contention between Ocean City and Worcester County for years. The town claims, I think the last number I saw was something to the tune of $17 million in tax differential. How would you grade your progress on that quest? Obviously, it’s a bit of a sticky situation, which you saw it at the city level, but now that you are in Snow Hill, do you see the debate any differently?
A: Absolutely not. Do I think its $17 million? Probably not. But, do I think its $2 million. Absolutely not. There’s a number in there that is the right number and we need to come to that agreement and we need to find that number.
Q: How far apart do you think the two sides are? Are they closer than they’ve been before?
A: This is something that is very important to me and I have a stronger voice about it than our previous County Commissioner did. So I think at least we have someone sitting at the table that will say ‘hey wait a minute, how does this effect Ocean City and why should they be involved?’ Still, with that said, you are still only one of seven (commissioners). We had a meeting with the County Administrator (Harold Higgins) and the President of the Commissioners with the members of the Ocean City contingency and that dialogue has to continue.
To be honest, I think Mr. Higgins heard what was said and he had actually put some more money for funding into the budget for Ocean City and my fellow commissioners cut it out. I think it was a 4-3 vote. So, I’m a year in, and there’s a couple of things that are on my list. I thought that maybe, as a lot of people do, I was going to walk in there and change things tomorrow, and I realize that it’s going to be more of an uphill battle. But, I’m there to fight that battle and I’m there to fight for Ocean City. Anything that comes through my desk, I look at it how it effects Ocean City and then how it effects Worcester County.
Q: You hear that sentiment that you just echoed from any new political figure; whether it’s at the state level, the federal level, or even the local county level. The first year, you have all these, call them delusions of grandeur or call them ambitions, to come in, carry a big stick, and make things happen. You were very outspoken with some things you wanted to change. Have you been frustrated with the take-one-step forward-take-two-steps-backward-or-maybe-not-even-any-steps-forward nature of your first year in office?
A: I don’t think I’ve taken any steps back. I keep working in a forward direction, but I don’t think I’m taking long strides. Maybe I’m taking baby steps, but hopefully my fellow Commissioners are learning where I’m coming from and how I operate. I’m learning how they operate and what’s important to them, and then we can work together on some of these issues. I don’t think anything I had set a goal for, in my mind, is completely dead. Of course, we are waiting for the liquor dispensary to come back with their numbers. That was set as priority by the commissioners at their strategic planning to plan an exit strategy for that, and I don’t see that changing. I mean, as recent as yesterday, there was discussion about the warehouse — not that they are going anywhere tomorrow — but that’s one thing that was on my list and I think that’s still there.
Q: It just might not be happening as quickly as you’d like…
A: Does anything happen as quickly as anyone likes?
Q: That’s a valid point but let’s go back to the liquor board. Obviously, if you look at the numbers that the Department of Liquor Control is yielding, it says maybe this isn’t a viable thing anymore and it fits your argument, but then, of course, you hear other people say, it’s a lot more complicated than just getting rid of it tomorrow. So, you end up hearing both sides talk about this exit strategy. Is there an exit strategy? What is it? What’s the timeline on it?
A: Well, in order to have an exit strategy, the first thing we’d have to do is to be able to have packaged goods stores in Worcester County. The stores that sell liquor and beer and wine together today are bars; they have to have bar stools and they have to have food and so forth. So, in order to get those packaged goods stores, we have to go through the General Assembly up in Annapolis. It has to be brought forward and a bill passed that allows us to have those. So, part of any exit strategy with the DLC would be that next meeting in Annapolis that begins in January.
Q: One could take the approach that knowing how slow government often moves and looking back to when the LCB was dissolved and this DLC was put in, things, legislatively speaking, were pushed five years down the road. So, is that exit strategy something that we’ll see five years from now? Simply put, is this something that could get punted again?
A: No, I believe there will be a time where we’ll have to bleed off inventory, and there will be a time where hopefully we can get legislation that will enable us to have these packaged goods stores in the future, and we’ll have to dissolve or sell off the stores that we have now. I’d say at the very least, from the time that it’s set in stone that it’s going away until it finally goes away it will be a year or year and a half. I would hope not but I would think that it would be a fair time to put on it. We have employees there that I would like to see moved to other posts in the county if possible or to even be bought out in early retirement if necessary. I’m not interested in putting anyone out on the street. I’m really not. I’m just interested in something that the county shouldn’t be in the business of anymore. It’s an archaic system that needs to go away.
Q: Earlier when I mentioned the one-step-forward-two-steps back, I wasn’t specifically speaking about you. But, what I was referring to was one of the other things you talked about during your campaign concerning making government more transparent: specifically, having video and/or audio of public meetings. At one point, it was in the budget to put these video applications in for public meetings, but then it was taken out. How frustrating was that for you? Of all the issues we’ve talked about that you campaigned on, this seemed to be the easiest sell. Why the hesitation from people in Snow Hill in county government from the people who were there before you to make these meetings visible?
A: There’s no accountability. Someone can sit up there next to me, or down the aisle from me and say whatever they want to say, and then when someone calls them on it, they say ‘oh, I didn’t say that, or I didn’t mean it that way. They misread that or misquoted me in the newspaper.’ There’s no accountability. People are afraid of accountability today. I’m not. But believe it or not, we are more transparent. Far, far, far less goes on behind closed doors than what used to. I can tell you that.
Q: Do you think that your approach has been off-putting to some of your colleagues, or do you think it’s something that you are all working around; because you certainly have a much different personality than your predecessor?
A: They don’t have to like me, Bryan. They have to respect me, but they don’t have to like me. And I don’t have to like them. We all have to work together to make the county better and to look out for our own districts. It would be nice if we were all buddy-buddy and we could all go out to dinner and have a good time, but I also don’t want to paint a picture like we don’t get along either. I feel like I’m gaining respect with each meeting.
When I first went down there, I think they were concerned about me coming down there because I do have a completely different personality than my predecessor. But, I see them look at me when I talk and I see it in their eyes and thinking about the things that I’m saying and they say ‘well, I agree with Commissioner Mitrecic, I think he has a point there.’ Which, I think when I first went down there I don’t think they were ready to do.
To listen to the entire conversation, click over to www.mdcoastdispatch.com/podcasts/